# OFAC Vs. Individuals published today



## j6ppc (Jun 5, 2006)

Another reminder that discretion is a good idea:



> *INDIVIDUALS - 31 CFR 501.805 (d)(1)(ii)*
> One individual has agreed to a settlement totaling $10,000 for alleged travel-related transactions incident to travel to Cuba: From May through December 2002, the individual engaged in travel-related transactions, including the purchase of food and lodging. The individual traveled to and from Cuba through a third country.
> 
> One individual has agreed to a settlement totaling $2,892.75 for allegedly dealing in property in which Cuba or a Cuban national had an interest: On December 30, 2004, May 29, 2005, February 28, 2006, March 28, 2006, August 21, 2006, and September 14, 2006, the individual purchased Cuban-origin cigars offered for sale on the Internet. The individual did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC.
> ...


----------



## The Professor (Jul 20, 2006)

j6ppc said:


> Another reminder that discretion is a good idea:


why must you give my friends nightmares???


----------



## Tidefan73 (May 11, 2007)

:c Damn OFAC!!!! :c


----------



## Mindflux (Dec 5, 2005)

Tidefan73 said:


> :c Damn OFAC!!!! :c


You realize that by linking to OFAC, they can check their referral hits on their site and see that the link was referred to on clubstogie.com ... which will eventually just point them this direction.

:hn


----------



## badhangover (May 24, 2006)

Sigh....

With their ever expanding target range of alleged dates of purchase(s), and their apparent "toying" of targeted individuals with the seemingly unnecessary "Request for Information" letters, OFAC is becoming more and more of a concern to certain individuals. I still can only puzzle at why there are only 3-4 or so individual cases listed in each monthly notice.


----------



## Mindflux (Dec 5, 2005)

badhangover said:


> Sigh....
> 
> With their ever expanding target range of alleged dates of purchase(s), and their apparent "toying" of targeted individuals with the seemingly unnecessary "Request for Information" letters, OFAC is becoming more and more of a concern to certain individuals. I still can only puzzle at why there are only 3-4 or so individual cases listed in each monthly notice.


They are only dealing with people whom have purchased from the vendor giving the information to OFAC or the credit card merchant (visa/mc) that are participating with OFAC.

Obviously that doesn't account for every vendor and every credit merchant.


----------



## kdhoffma (May 22, 2007)

Mindflux said:


> You realize that by linking to OFAC, they can check their referral hits on their site and see that the link was referred to on clubstogie.com ... which will eventually just point them this direction.
> 
> :hn


I assure you, if they are interested in following internet boards then they've been following this one for some time.


----------



## Mindflux (Dec 5, 2005)

kdhoffma said:


> I assure you, if they are interested in following internet boards then they've been following this one for some time.


Well no doubt, but no sense in giving them more insight into interest in OFAC activities.


----------



## badhangover (May 24, 2006)

Mindflux said:


> They are only dealing with people whom have purchased from the vendor giving the information to OFAC or the credit card merchant (visa/mc) that are participating.


Alleged purchasers from two different vendors have been receiving these letters from nearly the beginning of this situation. One of those vendors was, and still is to some degree, extremely popular. I can only imagine how many North American customers they had/have. It would number in the thousands, I'm sure. Them darn Canadians! However, OFAC has consistently only had three or four individual case resolutions per month.


----------



## badhangover (May 24, 2006)

Mindflux said:


> Well no doubt, but no sense in giving them more insight into interest in OFAC activities.


I agree. I would delete the hotlink, personally. Just because they can access our forums does not mean we should hand that access to them on a silver platter.


----------



## Mindflux (Dec 5, 2005)

badhangover said:


> Purchasers from two different vendors have been receiving these letters from nearly the beginning of this situation. One of those vendors was, and still is to some degree, extremely popular. I can only imagine how many North American customers they had/have. It would number in the thousands, I'm sure. Them darn Canadians! However, OFAC has consistently only had three or four individual case resolutions per month.


Hum. It was my understanding that one of the vendors in question (a popular one) had not given such information out. This is assuming we are even discussing the same vendor.


----------



## wharfrathoss (Dec 27, 2006)

if there's proof that a particular vendor gave the info (ie. was only vendor purchased thru & w/a prepaid card), OUT 'EM!!-there's been a lot of talk about a certain vendor being one that turns over the info


----------



## badhangover (May 24, 2006)

I think we are. Both vendors are from the same region, yes?

There is so much speculation in regards to this topic. Some of it based on intelligence gleaned from quasi covert sources. It is what it is. We can't change the past. Best to just bust out the popcorn and see how it plays out. 

That being said, that region is a big no no on my list.


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

$200? That's actually good news!


----------



## Mindflux (Dec 5, 2005)

badhangover said:


> I think we are. Both vendors are from the same region, yes?
> 
> There is so much speculation in regards to this topic. Some of it based on intelligence gleaned from quasi covert sources. It is what it is. We can't change the past. Best to just bust out the popcorn and see how it plays out.
> 
> That being said, that region is a big no no on my list.


Same region. Yes. I distinctly remember a letter from said popular vendor to a concerned individual that flat out denied giving information out on another board.


----------



## badhangover (May 24, 2006)

I recall that too. However, I temper that with the knowledge that he is in the business of making money (from sales). I like him. I've spoken with him. I just am not comfortable being that close to the fire. That's just me. These are uncertain times in regards to that region. We each make our own decisions as best for us.


----------



## Teninx (Apr 23, 2006)

The burden of proof in civil cases is much lower than the burden of proof in criminal cases. A government agency can tie someone up for years in civil action and only have to prove that it's more likely than not that the offense was committed.


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl (Sep 8, 2005)

Your tax dollars at work. All you Patriot Act apologists, I just hope you're feeling more "secure" now.


----------



## The Professor (Jul 20, 2006)

Corona Gigante said:


> Your tax dollars at work. All you Patriot Act apologists, I just hope you're feeling more "secure" now.


what are you talking about? it's not like they're listen in on our c---

[click, click]

did anyone else hear that???


----------



## badhangover (May 24, 2006)

Teninx said:


> The burden of proof in civil cases is much lower than the burden of proof in criminal cases. A government agency can tie someone up for years in civil action and only have to prove that it's more likely than not that the offense was committed.


Not gonna be a whole lot o' "burden" on their end. OFAC has exhibited in their case resolutions that they know exactly what cigars were allegedly purchased, how many of them, on what date, payment method and from which vendor.

Burden to the individual, it seems. Or they can throw caution to the wind and test out just how serious the government would take that whole "Trading With The Enemy" thang...


----------



## mdtaggart (Sep 22, 2006)

Corona Gigante said:


> Your tax dollars at work. All you Patriot Act apologists, I just hope you're feeling more "secure" now.


Huh? What does the Patriot Act have to do with this?


----------



## The Professor (Jul 20, 2006)

mdtaggart said:


> Huh? What does the Patriot Act have to do with this?


email surveillance, for one.


----------



## mdtaggart (Sep 22, 2006)

The Professor said:


> email surveillance, for one.


Are you saying, you believe that the OFAC is looking at our email to see if someone is buying Cubans?


----------



## LasciviousXXX (Oct 12, 2004)

wharfrathoss said:


> if there's proof that a particular vendor gave the info (ie. was only vendor purchased thru & w/a prepaid card), OUT 'EM!!-there's been a lot of talk about a certain vendor being one that turns over the info


That's exactly what we're NOT going to do here or it will be deleted.... sorry


----------



## kdhoffma (May 22, 2007)

mdtaggart said:


> Are you saying, you believe that the OFAC is looking at our email to see if someone is buying Cubans?


It wouldn't be very hard. From what I understand, one of these vendors sends an order confirmation email which has an inventory of what was ordered and shipped, along with the shipping address. Combine that info with whatever was obtained from the credit card company and bingo, the government has all the info they need.


----------



## justinphilly-cl (Sep 7, 2005)

the ice sure is thin here, isnt it...

just waiting for the one post to CRACK the whole thing..

tread lightly gorillas, tread VERY, VERY lightly.


----------



## Teninx (Apr 23, 2006)

We post about sending bombs to people all the time. Betcha that trips a few wires at Fort Meade.


----------



## Mindflux (Dec 5, 2005)

justinphilly said:


> the ice sure is thin here, isnt it...
> 
> just waiting for the one post to CRACK the whole thing..
> 
> tread lightly gorillas, tread VERY, VERY lightly.


It doesn't feel thin here, afaik. I think people are being very careful to mind their p's and q's.


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

wharfrathoss said:


> if there's proof that a particular vendor gave the info (ie. was only vendor purchased thru & w/a prepaid card), OUT 'EM!!-there's been a lot of talk about a certain vendor being one that turns over the info


Be very careful with this one, Gorillas....I already edited the post above, and anything more specific is gonna be dealt with a little more harshly. :2


----------



## j6ppc (Jun 5, 2006)

icehog3 said:


> Be very careful with this one, Gorillas....I already edited the post above, and anything more specific is gonna be dealt with a little more harshly. :2


Thank you Tom. This really was not at all about rehashing the OFAC letters but rather an attempt to remind folks that there can in fact be consequences to buying Cubans if you live in the US (or are even a US citizen living elsewhere) and that *discretion* is well advised for those who choose to violate the law. In other words if the excellent sticky thread did not catch some folks attention then perhaps this thread might.


----------



## pnoon (Jun 8, 2005)

justinphilly said:


> the ice sure is thin here, isnt it...
> 
> just waiting for the one post to CRACK the whole thing..
> 
> tread lightly gorillas, tread VERY, VERY lightly.


:tpd:



Mindflux said:


> It doesn't feel thin here, afaik. I think people are being very careful to mind their p's and q's.


See response above. I think the point was that you MUST be careful here.


----------



## SeanGAR (Jul 9, 2004)

I'm kinda curious if the "other letter" has been given out since they appear to be cracking down on purchases from_ you know where_.

The other letter is the one that they tell you they're going to smoke ... er ... dispose of .. said property.

I can't quite remember what it said, I used that letter to light a PSD4.


----------



## Dandee (Feb 20, 2006)

pnutbutrsangwich said:


> $200? That's actually good news!


My thoughts exactly! :2


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

j6ppc said:


> Thank you Tom. This really was not at all about rehashing the OFAC letters but rather an attempt to remind folks that there can in fact be consequences to buying Cubans if you live in the US (or are even a US citizen living elsewhere) and that *discretion* is well advised for those who choose to violate the law. In other words if the excellent sticky thread did not catch some folks attention then perhaps this thread might.


The thread is actually a great reminder Jon....I took issue with one Gorilla posting the country that a vendor is in, it was getting dangerously close to being dangerously specific. 

Hi Sean!


----------



## justinphilly-cl (Sep 7, 2005)

SeanGAR said:


> I'm kinda curious if the "other letter" has been given out since they appear to be cracking down on purchases from_ you know where_.
> 
> The other letter is the one that they tell you they're going to smoke ... er ... dispose of .. said property.
> 
> I can't quite remember what it said, I used that letter to light a PSD4.


you can always count on seangar for a good laugh..

people, any thread that has dustin, tom, peter, and sean ALL posting within 30 minutes of each other is a thread that is getting ALOT of attention.. Not saying that anyone (other then they guy who posted where the vendor was from ((cambodia, right?)) nobody has done anything wrong, YET..)

be good.


----------



## gabebdog1 (Mar 9, 2005)

this is why I smoke backwoods and acids:ss cuban cigars suck


----------



## LiteHedded (Apr 10, 2005)

icehog3 said:


> The thread is actually a great reminder Jon....I took issue with one Gorilla posting the country that a vendor is in, it was getting dangerously close to being dangerously specific.
> 
> Hi Sean!


why can't we post the country the vendor is in?
seems it would be quite helpful


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

SeanGAR said:


> I'm kinda curious if the "other letter" has been given out since they appear to be cracking down on purchases from_ you know where_.
> 
> The other letter is the one that they tell you they're going to smoke ... er ... dispose of .. said property.
> 
> I can't quite remember what it said, I used that letter to light a PSD4.


Yeah that one still happens (at least as of Feb 07). The two appear to be relatively unrelated actually.


----------



## 12stones (Jan 6, 2006)

LiteHedded said:


> why can't we post the country the vendor is in?
> seems it would be quite helpful


Because that narrows down the potential vendors and is indirectly discussing vendors which is a no-no.


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

LiteHedded said:


> why can't we post the country the vendor is in?
> seems it would be quite helpful





icehog3 said:


> I took issue with one Gorilla posting the country that a vendor is in, it was getting dangerously close to being dangerously specific


My post wasn't clear enough????



12stones said:


> Because that narrows down the potential vendors and is indirectly discussing vendors which is a no-no.


Hope Ricky was able to get the message across a little better then...thanks Ricky.


----------



## Bigwaved (May 20, 2006)

gabebdog1 said:


> this is why I smoke backwoods and acids:ss cuban cigars suck


You really know how to roll...that is why I admire you. Well, that and you peddle Pepsi...


----------



## justinphilly-cl (Sep 7, 2005)

LiteHedded said:


> why can't we post the country the vendor is in?
> seems it would be quite helpful


for the simple reason that,

"A moderator said we could not"

thats the perils of threads like these.. the thread itself is on the edge, and people want to post things that THEY think is ok, when in fact it is not up to THEM to decide.. I may agree with you that someone should be able to mention the country of the vendor (cambodia), but its not MY forum, nor is it YOURS.. there is another cigar forum out there that allows open vendor discussion. To the credit of CS, i think alot of people are unhappy about the other site's open vendor discussion policy.


----------



## BP22 (Apr 13, 2006)

_"The individual did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC." _

This line really concerns me...

mmmmmm backwoods and acids mmmmmm...:ss


----------



## j6ppc (Jun 5, 2006)

BP22 said:


> _"The individual did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC." _
> 
> This line really concerns me...
> 
> mmmmmm backwoods and acids mmmmmm...:ss


Intercepting email is trivial. Monitoring unencrypted internet traffic is trivial.
Monitoring overseas phone calls is entirely permissable w/o a warrant.


----------



## BP22 (Apr 13, 2006)

j6ppc said:


> Intercepting email is trivial. Monitoring unencrypted internet traffic is trivial.
> Monitoring overseas phone calls is entirely permissable w/o a warrant.


Thanks Jon...I feel better now. :hn


----------



## muziq (Mar 14, 2005)

j6ppc said:


> Intercepting email is trivial. Monitoring unencrypted internet traffic is trivial.
> Monitoring overseas phone calls is entirely permissable w/o a warrant.


Not calling anyone out here by any means, but it might be good to check other/older threads about this topic on this and other boards. There's quite a bit of detail about what OFAC did to obtain the allegedly incriminating information--and it's already been discussed in an appropriate way. It would be great if we didn't let rumors/stories/myths begin to develop (again) about what's happening with OFAC. Facts, not speculation, will help our community the most in the end, especially given how quickly our community welcomes new members.

I agree it's good to be reminded that this situation still exists, and am appreciative of the original post and poster.


----------



## 12stones (Jan 6, 2006)

muziq said:


> Not calling anyone out here by any means, but it might be good to check other/older threads about this topic on this and other boards. There's quite a bit of detail about what OFAC did to obtain the allegedly incriminating information--and it's already been discussed in an appropriate way. It would be great if we didn't let rumors/stories/myths begin to develop (again) about what's happening with OFAC. Facts, not speculation, will help our community the most in the end, especially given how quickly our community welcomes new members.
> 
> I agree it's good to be reminded that this situation still exists, and am appreciative of the original post and poster.


:tpd:

Well said.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

BP22 said:


> _"The individual did not voluntarily disclose this matter to OFAC." _
> 
> This line really concerns me...
> 
> mmmmmm backwoods and acids mmmmmm...:ss





j6ppc said:


> Intercepting email is trivial. Monitoring unencrypted internet traffic is trivial.
> Monitoring overseas phone calls is entirely permissable w/o a warrant.


Guys I can't be sure of this, but I don't think what Brandon quoted means what you think it does.

None of the people OFAC went after originally volunteered any information to them. But once they are on to you, one of the letters OFAC sends out instructs the recipient to turn over certain records to them.

I think what Brandon quoted has to do with the fact that that particular person did not cooperate with OFAC's investigation and provide them with the docs they wanted, it doesn't have to do with how the information orignally came to OFAC's attention. That's just my take on it given what I know.


----------



## croatan (Mar 23, 2005)

ResIpsa said:


> I think what Brandon quoted has to do with the fact that that particular person did not cooperate with OFAC's investigation and provide them with the docs they wanted, it doesn't have to do with how the information orignally came to OFAC's attention. That's just my take on it given what I know.


That's my reading of it as well.


----------



## LiteHedded (Apr 10, 2005)

icehog3 said:


> My post wasn't clear enough????


well no, not really. if it was I wouldn't have said anything.
I just thought with a vendor who is directly/indirectly (whatever) responsible for getting people fined it might be a good idea to get a tad more specific.

but that's cool. i get it


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

LiteHedded said:


> well no, not really. if it was I wouldn't have said anything.
> I just thought with a vendor who is directly/indirectly (whatever) responsible for getting people fined it might be a good idea to get a tad more specific.
> 
> but that's cool. i get it


CS has a policy against discussing specific vendors. It was in place before I was a member. It was in place before I was a moderator. As a moderator now, I am looked to to enforce it. So whether or not you or I think it is a "good idea to get a tad more specific", the owner of this site does not. Period.


----------



## BP22 (Apr 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by ResIpsa
> I think what Brandon quoted has to do with the fact that that particular person did not cooperate with OFAC's investigation and provide them with the docs they wanted, it doesn't have to do with how the information orignally came to OFAC's attention. That's just my take on it given what I know.





croatan said:


> That's my reading of it as well.


I'm not going to get a bill from you guys am I??? :r

Thanks Vic and James.


----------



## galaga (Sep 18, 2003)

LiteHedded said:


> well no, not really. if it was I wouldn't have said anything.
> I just thought with a vendor who is directly/indirectly (whatever) responsible for getting people fined it might be a good idea to get a tad more specific.
> 
> but that's cool. i get it


Well, when you get down to it, the resposibilty for the fine is on the US citizen who purchased illegal cigars; not on the vendor, and not on the owner of the board.



icehog3 said:


> CS has a policy against discussing specific vendors. It was in place before I was a member. It was in place before I was a moderator. As a moderator now, I am looked to to enforce it. So whether or not you or I think it is a "good idea to get a tad more specific", the owner of this site does not. Period.


You mean before this post, Bro?

*New Monkey in Chicago
Howdy to all the members of the Forum, I am sure you get lots of these posts. I have been a casual smoker for years, but just returned from the Bahamas with a mini-humidor from Park Lane and a few stogies. All the nice smokes in Nassau gave me the fever, so now I am looking for a 100-150 count humidor and some good legal smokes. Besides cigars, I am a big hockey fan (sad one too), Harley man etc...

I am spending a lot of time on-line researching humidors and cigars, as I am having big hygrometer problems with the little humidor...hoping my luck gets better with a bigger one.

I look forward to learning a lot from you all, hope that someday I will know enough to help a newbie like me too...

Regards, hog
*

Ya don't
tug on Superman's cape
Spit into the wind
Pull the mask off the Old Lone Ranger and ya
Don't mess a round with hockey Enforcers

You never did see my battery on the tongue post did you?


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

galaga said:


> Ya don't
> tug on Superman's cape
> Spit into the wind
> Pull the mask off the Old Lone Ranger and ya
> ...


----------



## j6ppc (Jun 5, 2006)

BP22 said:


> I'm not going to get a bill from you guys am I??? :r
> 
> Thanks Vic and James.


They are sending me the bill since the advice was in a thread I started.

The point I was trying to make was that they (OFAC) can build a fine case w/o any information being actively provided by any of the parties to the transaction(s) in question.


----------



## poker (Dec 11, 1997)

kdhoffma said:


> I assure you, if they are interested in following internet boards then they've been following this one for some time.


The above quote has more truth than some may know. CS has recorded member(s) signing up from IP addresses belonging to the US Treasury.

...and some guys wonder why the mods enforce the "no vendor information" rule with such vigor.


----------



## BP22 (Apr 13, 2006)

j6ppc said:


> They are sending me the bill since the advice was in a thread I started.


Good because I am broke and was going to have to pay them in CSWOM cigars. (Country SouthWest of Miami) :ss


----------



## kdhoffma (May 22, 2007)

poker said:


> The above quote has more truth than some may know. CS has recorded member(s) signing up from IP addresses belonging to the US Treasury.
> 
> ...and some guys wonder why the mods enforce the "no vendor information" rule with such vigor.


It's a good policy. No need to bring increased scrutiny to this board or any of its members. This is one of (if not the) largest cigar boards I know of, which means there will already be plenty of oversight from big brother.


----------



## Eternal Rider (Feb 27, 2006)

Big Brother is watching your every move, just ask Microsoft. When Microsoft introduced Vista they forget to tell you in the fine print that will track your every move on the net and there is nothing you can do about it.


----------



## Mindflux (Dec 5, 2005)

Eternal Rider said:


> Big Brother is watching your every move, just ask Microsoft. When Microsoft introduced Vista they forget to tell you in the fine print that will track your every move on the net and there is nothing you can do about it.


:hn

Do you honestly believe that?

My firewall says otherwise.


----------



## floydp (Jun 6, 2004)

The information in this thread is why I smoke nothing but Tampa Sweethearts. 


Thanks Jon.


----------



## M1903A1 (Jun 7, 2006)

pnutbutrsangwich said:


> $200? That's actually good news!


Well, here's a thought on that...sometime between late 2003 and mid-2004, the rules changed. Previously a visitor to Cuba (with a legitimate, authorized visa--usually "educational") was allowed to come back with a limited amount of Cuban goods for personal use. This was subsequently eradicated, and I believe there were also further changes in the law regarding Cuba at that time; there may be a connection. :2

I would also be interested to know what, if any, connection there was between the fines levied and the dollar value of goods purchased.


----------



## Boston_Dude05 (Oct 10, 2006)

Good thing I like NCs like Padron, Padilla, Tats and Pepin.


----------



## floydpink (Feb 15, 2007)

[QUOTE
I would also be interested to know what, if any, connection there was between the fines levied and the dollar value of goods purchased.[/QUOTE]

I was wondering the same thing. I'd also be interested to know how random the enforcement was.


----------



## Old Sailor (Jul 27, 2006)

Eternal Rider said:


> *Big Brother is watching your every move*, just ask Microsoft. When Microsoft introduced Vista they forget to tell you in the fine print that will track your every move on the net and there is nothing you can do about it.


You mean Booker is BIG BROTHER


----------



## audilicious-cl (Apr 10, 2007)

Why are they not publishing names?

If a crime is commited then there should be a public record of the case.

Doesn't make sense to me how this is going down. It sounds like they're forcing people to incriminate themselves, and if they don't they send them a fine, how they enforce the fine without courts and public paper trails with the case file and evidence presented to the public, I don't know.


----------



## wharfrathoss (Dec 27, 2006)

from what i've heard they're asking people to incriminate themselves, then giving a larger fine if they don't-when people don't 'fess up, they've been sent the penalty letter w/more details-seems like the agency already has the particulars-2 large credit card companies are supposeably cooperating w/the agency-some "method of payment" companies are supposeable cooperating also-if this is true then there's how they got the paper trail, not to mention email & internet monitoring-remember this is the govt., the general public has less & less to do w/it these days

BTW, the above "info" is from what i've read or heard, making it "hearsay" or "seesay"-i'm no expert on this stuff, & have not talked to anyone directly involved-all this stuff is out there guys if you're curious, & w/a little searching can be found pretty easily


----------



## Mikes (Apr 6, 2004)

poker said:


> The above quote has more truth than some may know. CS has recorded member(s) signing up from IP addresses belonging to the US Treasury.
> 
> ...and some guys wonder why the mods enforce the "no vendor information" rule with such vigor.


Wow did not know this and you can bet your ass if they are here then they are at other cigar bbs as well :sb:gn:fu

:


----------



## Cubatobaco (Jul 5, 2007)

They will try anything to stop a good thing. they are wasting more time hunting down people and fining them than proposing a lift to a long overdue embargo.


----------



## Moosie (Apr 25, 2005)

The Federal Government will spend a million dollars to collect a dime. They have all the money they need to conduct any investigation they want.


----------

